1
|
Ramalho-Vasconcelos F, Gomes R, Bouça-Machado R, Aral M, Nogueiro J, Bouça-Machado T, Sousa-Pinto B, Santos-Sousa H. Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) in the Treatment of Gastric Cancer: Feasibility, Efficacy and Safety-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med 2024; 13:3320. [PMID: 38893031 PMCID: PMC11173180 DOI: 10.3390/jcm13113320] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2024] [Revised: 05/31/2024] [Accepted: 06/03/2024] [Indexed: 06/21/2024] Open
Abstract
Background: Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an emerging technique for delivering chemotherapy directly to the peritoneum via a pressurized aerosol. Its growing attention stems from its effectiveness in treating peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) originating from various primary tumors, with gastric cancer (GC) being among the most prevalent. This study aimed to systematically investigate PIPAC's therapeutic role in gastric cancer peritoneal metastasis (GCPM). Methods: The systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, searching Pubmed, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases. The meta-analysis of relative risks and mean differences compared patients undergoing one or two PIPAC sessions with those completing three or more, assessing various outcomes. Results: Eighteen studies underwent qualitative analysis, and four underwent quantitative analysis. Patients with three or more PIPAC procedures had shorter hospital stays (MD = -1.2; 95%CI (-1.9; -0.5); p < 0.001), higher rates of histopathological response (RR = 1.77, 95%CI 1.08; 2.90; p = 0.023), and significantly improved overall survival (MD = 6.0; 95%CI 4.2; 7.8; p < 0.001). Other outcomes showed no significant differences. Conclusions: PIPAC demonstrated efficacy in carefully selected patients, enhancing histopathologic response rates and overall survival without prolonging hospital stays. This study underscores the necessity for randomized controlled trials and precise selection criteria to refine PIPAC's implementation in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Raquel Gomes
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal
| | - Raquel Bouça-Machado
- Instituto de Medicina Molecular João Lobo Antunes—Edifício Egas Moniz, Avenida Professor Egas Moniz, 1649-028 Lisboa, Portugal
| | - Marisa Aral
- São João Local Health Unit, Surgery Department, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal
| | - Jorge Nogueiro
- São João Local Health Unit, Surgery Department, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal
| | | | - Bernardo Sousa-Pinto
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal
- MEDCIDS—Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal
- CINTESIS—Centre for Health Technologies and Services Research, University of Porto, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal
| | - Hugo Santos-Sousa
- São João Local Health Unit, Obesity Integrated Responsibility Unit (CRI-O), 4200-319 Porto, Portugal
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Hansen PS, Graversen M, Detlefsen S, Mortensen MB. Review on treatment of pleural metastasis and malignant pleural effusion with Pressurized IntraThoracic Aerosol Chemotherapy (PITAC). Pleura Peritoneum 2024; 9:47-53. [PMID: 38948327 PMCID: PMC11211649 DOI: 10.1515/pp-2023-0048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/20/2023] [Accepted: 03/05/2024] [Indexed: 07/02/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is a common and debilitating condition seen in advanced cancer disease, and life-expectancy is short. Symptoms include pain and severe shortness of breath. Current first-line treatment options include pleural drainage using catheters as well as pleurodesis. However, these treatment modalities are often inefficient and patients need repeated procedures. Pressurized IntraThoracic Aerosol Chemotherapy (PITAC) is a minimally invasive procedure, where antineoplastic agents are nebulized under pressure into the pleural space. Content We present the preliminary safety, feasibility, and response assessment data for PITAC based on a comprehensive literature review. Summary Five retrospective studies reported data on 38 PITACs in 21 patients. Data were heterogeneous and incomplete on several important aspects such as procedure, safety, local effect and long-term outcomes. PITAC seems technically feasible with a low risk of complications and may provide some reduction in MPE in selected cases. Outlook PITAC seems feasible, but prospective phase I and II studies are needed to define safety, indications, and efficacy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pernille Schjødt Hansen
- Odense PIPAC Center (OPC) and Odense Pancreas Center (OPAC), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - Martin Graversen
- Odense PIPAC Center (OPC) and Odense Pancreas Center (OPAC), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
- Department of Surgery, HPB and Upper GI Section, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - Sönke Detlefsen
- Odense PIPAC Center (OPC) and Odense Pancreas Center (OPAC), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
- Institute of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
- Department of Pathology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - Michael Bau Mortensen
- Odense PIPAC Center (OPC) and Odense Pancreas Center (OPAC), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
- Department of Surgery, HPB and Upper GI Section, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
- Institute of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Göhler D, Oelschlägel K, Ouaissi M, Giger-Pabst U. Performance of different nebulizers in clinical use for Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC). PLoS One 2024; 19:e0300241. [PMID: 38696384 PMCID: PMC11065249 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300241] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2023] [Accepted: 02/23/2024] [Indexed: 05/04/2024] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Technical ex-vivo comparison of commercial nebulizer nozzles used for Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC). METHODS The performance of four different commercial nebulizer nozzles (Nebulizer; HurriChemTM; MCR-4 TOPOL®; QuattroJet) was analysed concerning: i) technical design and principle of operation, ii) operational pressure as function of the liquid flow rate, iii) droplet size distribution via laser diffraction spectrometry, iv) spray cone angle, spray cone form as well as horizontal drug deposition by image-metric analyses and v) chemical resistance via exposing to a cytostatic solution and chemical composition by means of spark optical emission spectral analysis. RESULTS The Nebulizer shows quasi an identical technical design and thus also a similar performance (e.g., mass median droplet size of 29 μm) as the original PIPAC nozzles (MIP/ CapnoPen). All other nozzles show more or less a performance deviation to the original PIPAC nozzles. The HurriChemTM has a similar design and principle of operation as the Nebulizer, but provides a finer aerosol (22 μm). The principle of operation of MCR-4 TOPOL® and QuattroJet differ significantly from that of the original PIPAC nozzle technology. The MCR-4 TOPOL® offers a hollow spray cone with significantly larger droplets (50 μm) than the original PIPAC nozzles. The QuattroJet generates an aerosol (22 μm) similar to that of the HurriChemTM but with improved spatial drug distribution. CONCLUSION The availability of new PIPAC nozzles is encouraging but can also have a negative impact if their performance and efficacy is unknown. It is recommended that PIPAC nozzles that deviate from the current standard should be subject to bioequivalence testing and implementation in accordance with the IDEAL-D framework prior to routine clinical use.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Göhler
- Topas GmbH, Dresden, Germany
- Research Group Mechanical Process Engineering, Institute of Process Engineering and Environmental Technology, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | | | - Mehdi Ouaissi
- EA4245 Transplantation, Immunology, Inflammation, Université de Tours, Tours, France
- Department of Digestive, Oncological, Endocrine, Hepato-Biliary, Pancreatic and Liver Transplant Surgery, University Hospital of Tours, Tours, France
| | - Urs Giger-Pabst
- EA4245 Transplantation, Immunology, Inflammation, Université de Tours, Tours, France
- Fliedner Fachhochschule, University of Applied Sciences Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Chiu CC. Letter to the Editor of Annals of Surgical Oncology Concerning "Safety and Efficacy of Oxaliplatin Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosolized Chemotherapy (PIPAC) in Colorectal and Appendiceal Cancer with Peritoneal Metastases: Results of a Multicenter Phase I Trial in the USA". Ann Surg Oncol 2024; 31:2405-2407. [PMID: 37971615 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-023-14595-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2023] [Accepted: 09/29/2023] [Indexed: 11/19/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Chong-Chi Chiu
- Department of General Surgery, E-Da Cancer Hospital, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
- Department of Medical Education and Research, E-Da Cancer Hospital, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
- School of Medicine, College of Medicine, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Mortensen MB, Casella F, Düzgün Ö, Glehen O, Hewett P, Hübner M, Jørgensen MS, Königsrainer A, Marin M, Pocard M, Rezniczek G, So J, Fristrup CW. Second annual report from the ISSPP PIPAC database. Pleura Peritoneum 2023; 8:141-146. [PMID: 38144218 PMCID: PMC10739278 DOI: 10.1515/pp-2023-0047] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2023] [Accepted: 11/27/2023] [Indexed: 12/26/2023] Open
Abstract
Objectives To monitor the results of PIPAC directed therapy based on data from the International Society for the Study of the Pleura and Peritoneum (ISSPP) PIPAC database. Methods Analysis of data from patients entered between June 15th, 2020, and February 28th, 2023. Results Twelve centers reported 2,456 PIPAC procedures in 809 patients (median 2, range 1-18) with peritoneal metastasis (PM) from different primary tumors. Approximately 90 % had systemic chemotherapy prior to PIPAC. Twenty-eight percent were treated in prospective protocols. Overall non-access rate was 3.5 %. Concomitant surgical procedures were performed during PIPAC in 1.6 % of the patients. Median length of stay was 2 days. A total of 95 surgical complications were recorded, but only 22 % of these were graded ≥3b. Seventeen-hundred-and-three adverse events were noted, and 8 % were classified ≥3. The rate of complete or major histological response (peritoneal regression grade score, PRGS≤2) increased between the first and the third PIPAC in the group of patients who were evaluated by PRGS, and a PRGS ≤2 or a reduction of the mean PRGS of at least 1 between first and third PIPAC were observed in 80 %. Disease progression (50 %) or technical issues (19 %) were the most important reasons for stopping PIPAC treatment. Median overall survival from first PIPAC directed treatment varied from 10.7 months (CI 8.7-12.5) in gastric cancer to 27.1 months (16.4-50.5) in mesothelioma. Conclusions The ISSPP PIPAC database provides substantial real-world data supporting the use of PIPAC directed therapy in patients with PM from different primary tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Bau Mortensen
- Upper GI and HPB Section, Department of Surgery, Odense Universitetshospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - Francesco Casella
- General and Upper GI Surgery, University of Verona, Verona, Veneto, Italy
| | - Özgül Düzgün
- Department of Surgical Oncology, İstanbul Ümraniye Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye
| | - Olivier Glehen
- Service de Chirurgie Digestive et Oncologique, Hôpital Lyon Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France
| | - Peter Hewett
- Department of Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville South, South Australia, Australia
| | - Martin Hübner
- Lausanne University Hospital CHUV, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | | | - Alfred Königsrainer
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Miguel Marin
- Department of Surgery, Reina Sofia University General Hospital, Murcia, Spain
| | - Marc Pocard
- Surgical Unit, Paris 7 University, Paris, France
| | | | - Jimmy So
- Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Saito A, Kitayama J, Nagai R, Aizawa K. Anatomical Targeting of Anticancer Drugs to Solid Tumors Using Specific Administration Routes: Review. Pharmaceutics 2023; 15:1664. [PMID: 37376112 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics15061664] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2023] [Revised: 06/02/2023] [Accepted: 06/04/2023] [Indexed: 06/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Despite remarkable recent progress in developing anti-cancer agents, outcomes of patients with solid tumors remain unsatisfactory. In general, anti-cancer drugs are systemically administered through peripheral veins and delivered throughout the body. The major problem with systemic chemotherapy is insufficient uptake of intravenous (IV) drugs by targeted tumor tissue. Although dose escalation and treatment intensification have been attempted in order to increase regional concentrations of anti-tumor drugs, these approaches have produced only marginal benefits in terms of patient outcomes, while often damaging healthy organs. To overcome this problem, local administration of anti-cancer agents can yield markedly higher drug concentrations in tumor tissue with less systemic toxicity. This strategy is most commonly used for liver and brain tumors, as well as pleural or peritoneal malignancies. Although the concept is theoretically reasonable, survival benefits are still limited. This review summarizes clinical results and problems and discusses future directions of regional cancer therapy with local administration of chemotherapeutants.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Akira Saito
- Department of Surgery, Jichi Medical University, 3311-1 Yakushiji, Shimotsuke, Tochigi 329-0431, Japan
| | - Joji Kitayama
- Department of Surgery, Jichi Medical University, 3311-1 Yakushiji, Shimotsuke, Tochigi 329-0431, Japan
- Division of Translational Research, Clinical Research Center, Jichi Medical University Hospital, Tochigi, Tochigi 329-0498, Japan
| | - Ryozo Nagai
- Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Jichi Medical University, 3311-1 Yakushiji, Shimotsuke, Tochigi 329-0498, Japan
| | - Kenichi Aizawa
- Division of Translational Research, Clinical Research Center, Jichi Medical University Hospital, Tochigi, Tochigi 329-0498, Japan
- Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Pharmacology, Jichi Medical University, 3311-1 Yakushiji, Shimotsuke, Tochigi 329-0498, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Roensholdt S, Detlefsen S, Mortensen MB, Graversen M. Response Evaluation in Patients with Peritoneal Metastasis Treated with Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC). J Clin Med 2023; 12:jcm12041289. [PMID: 36835824 PMCID: PMC9963217 DOI: 10.3390/jcm12041289] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/06/2023] [Revised: 01/28/2023] [Accepted: 02/01/2023] [Indexed: 02/10/2023] Open
Abstract
Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) directed therapy emerged as a treatment of peritoneal metastasis (PM) a decade ago. The response assessment of PIPAC is not uniform. This narrative review describes non-invasive and invasive methods for response evaluation of PIPAC and summarizes their current status. PubMed and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for eligible publications, and data were reported on an intention-to-treat basis. The peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) showed a response in 18-58% of patients after two PIPACs. Five studies showed a cytological response in ascites or peritoneal lavage fluid in 6-15% of the patients. The proportion of patients with malignant cytology decreased between the first and third PIPAC. A computed tomography showed stable or regressive disease following PIPAC in 15-78% of patients. The peritoneal cancer index was mainly used as a demographic variable, but prospective studies reported a response to treatment in 57-72% of patients. The role of serum biomarkers of cancer or inflammation in the selection of candidates for and responders to PIPAC is not fully evaluated. In conclusion, response evaluation after PIPAC in patients with PM remains difficult, but PRGS seems to be the most promising response evaluation modality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Signe Roensholdt
- Odense PIPAC Center, Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloews Vej 4, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloews Vej 4, 5000 Odense, Denmark
| | - Sönke Detlefsen
- Odense PIPAC Center, Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloews Vej 4, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Department of Pathology, Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloews Vej 15, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Odense Pancreas Center (OPAC), Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloews Vej 4, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsloews Vej 19, 5000 Odense, Denmark
| | - Michael Bau Mortensen
- Odense PIPAC Center, Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloews Vej 4, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Odense Pancreas Center (OPAC), Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloews Vej 4, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsloews Vej 19, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Department of Surgery, Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloews Vej 4, 5000 Odense, Denmark
| | - Martin Graversen
- Odense PIPAC Center, Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloews Vej 4, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Odense Pancreas Center (OPAC), Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloews Vej 4, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsloews Vej 19, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Department of Surgery, Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloews Vej 4, 5000 Odense, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|